"I complied with human rights-violating U.S. renunciation rules — and this leaves a bitter taste." https://t.co/H5qRkzhxxq
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) August 24, 2016
Click on the link in the above tweet to see the complete discussion.
The bottom line is that Dr. Stephen Kish – Chair of the Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and plaintiff in the Bopp FATCA Lawsuit, has formally renounced U.S. citizenship. He performed this act in Iceland which is the final resting place of Robert James Fischer – one of the most famous and well known cases of U.S. citizenship relinquishment.
@JapanT, well said.
Japanese immigration law requires naturalized citizens to sever all claims their previous nation have on them within two years of naturalizing as Japanese. Most ignore this and remain dual against Japanese law, however, an American who became Japanese but did not finish (do?) the renunciation process out of fear of the cost to do so recently lost his Japanese citizenship via this provision. Which means he became an American in Japan without a US passport and thus without a visa to live be in Japan.
I do not know if renouncing but not getting a CLN would have prevented this or not. But this person, who seemed to be farther aheadcof the game than I seems to not thought so.
As for the IGA Japan signed, as far as I have learned, while it allows for self certification, it does not provide the provisions for self certification nor mandate that banks accept self certification.
Many reports in these threads of financial institutions requiring more than their nation’s IGA requires. The IGA should not be looked to for protection, IMO,
‘“complexities reduced to stupidities”.
‘For example:
A foreign country “U” declares extraterritorially, (purportedly in aid of fighting money launderers, criminal drug lords and terrorists inside its “U” boundaries), that for example; any child born outside “U” with DNA inherited from only 1 defined qualified “U-born” parent,’
That’s intentional malice not stupidity.
Here’s stupidity:
A country “C” declares that a foreign country “U” is correct when “U” declares extraterritorially, (purportedly in aid of fighting money launderers, criminal drug lords and terrorists inside its “U” boundaries), that for example; any child born inside “C” with DNA inherited from only 1 defined qualified “U-born” parent, though the child is living and physically located within the national boundaries of “C” and holds citizenship of “C” since birth and who has never set foot on “U” soil, is governed by “U”‘s foreign extraterritorial laws, which have declared the “C born” child’s local “C” education savings account created by, funded by and legally controlled by a “C only” adult parent and located on “C” soil, is a legitimate “U” government target for confiscatory extraterritorial penalties by “U” based on the local savings account’s “C” location, despite the “C”account, the “C”adult signatory, and the beneficiary child born and located in “C” all being clearly and indisputedly outside of “U”‘s national boundaries and jurisdiction. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of “U” absurdly uses an internet webpage to direct such a child – located outside of “U”, who cannot read, and does not have access to the internet, to independently of any adult, obtain banking information, complete and submit meaningless information and identify a numerical value which they are not developmentally competent to do (“highest account balance on any one day in the year” data) – which the “C” bank does not collect or report on and which bears no meaningful relationship to either “C”‘s tax laws or “U”‘s tax system). And when “C”‘s citizens sue to uphold “C”‘s constitution, “C”‘s government uses “C”‘s citizens’ money to oppose “C”‘s citizens to continue trashing “C”‘s constitution.
‘The U.S. Japan FATCA IGA clearly allows a self-certification of not being a U.S. person. Are you saying this is not possible?’
I wonder if that’s possible for someone whose only citizenship is US.
I think it would be possible for someone who is stateless. A few decades ago I saw someone in the immigration bureau holding a stateless person’s document. I don’t know what country issued the document. I suppose that if Japan T renounces and becomes stateless, Japan would try to deport him to the US but the US would refuse to accept him, so he could get a stateless person’s document from the Japanese government. I wonder if that would help or hurt his case, especially when he has to preserve his children’s eligibility to stay in Japanese day care (to properly learn Japanese language and behaviour).
Nope, that is cowardice.
My understanding is that the US will generally not allow a USC to become stateless. Personally, I would love to become Stateless. It is clear that being a citizen of the US while outside the borders of the US not only nulls all protections citizenship provides but also makes the citizen a target of every enemy of the US (nothing new) and much worse a target of the US. It is also clear that being a citizen of any nation other than the US and living in the country of one’s nationality also does not protect the nonUS citizen from the US. So, what is the benefit of citizenship?
“A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”… as long as the US says so.
@Norman Diamond, thanks for adding that observation; “And when “C”‘s citizens sue to uphold “C”‘s constitution, “C”‘s government uses “C”‘s citizens’ money to oppose “C”‘s citizens to continue trashing “C”‘s constitution.”
Too true.
@USCitizenAbroad, for me personally, the only road I felt I could live with was one that would lead to renunciation – in order to sever the connection as finally as possible. But everybody has a different set of “unique facts and circumstances”.
If one can, then I would “get out while the getting is semi-good” (quoting Phil H. again) and continue in this fight to defend our non-US home countries from selling our fellow citizens and residents, our Charter and our constitution down the river to the south – at our own non-US expense.
The stupidities, absurdities and malice from the US will continue unabated. Past behaviour being a good predictor of the future. The five years since I first came to hear of all this has shown me that we can expect only that “the beatings will continue until morale improves” (as Phil H. says). And I am reminded that there were the previous decades of expat struggles for redress and recourse that Roger Conklin educated us newcomers about http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/?s=Roger+Conklin which I had no idea existed.
Another interesting post from from the 2011 2012 era:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/03/25/a-real-life-story-of-a-us-person-chased-out-of-the-us/
It was his desire to obey the law that destroyed him. Simply incredible. This reminds of the Marcio Pinheiro story.
“My understanding is that the US will generally not allow a USC to become stateless.”
They discourage it, but I don’t think they’ve stopped anyone yet. Of course one way they could stop it is by setting a renunciation appointment in the year 2316.
At first I chuckeled at your idea of setting the renounciation appointment so far in the future, but then I seem to recall something very similar in connection with something else, related to immigration I think.
Admistrative stonewalling has become a hallmark of the current administration. I read a some what recent article about FOIA requests from the Pentagon. The Pentagon had only one fax machine to receive FOIA requests through and, it was boken.
You probably right.
@NormanDiamond
“intentional malice not stupidity”
Sometimes I think it might be far more realistic to acknowledge that this is not a fair world. Atrocities are being committed everywhere. Maybe this is why to most other people FATCA and CBT are not “important enough” issues to address. Sadly. But with acceptance that the most I can do is support legal action, I have bowed out and renounced. I know quite a few others who have even done so without becoming compliant. What their future holds is in the stars. But the world is not a fair place. And many many people have died for it.
“I read a some what recent article about FOIA requests from the Pentagon.”
The IRS is better. When I asked the IRS for some documents they had created about me, the IRS told me to write to the IRS in Washington. I did, by letter not by fax.
Besides listing the documents I wanted, I gave an example. The IRS had accidentally revealed a particular document for 2006 but later tried to hide it. I demanded documents for 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and gave a copy of the 2006 document as an example of what I was demanding.
The IRS replied that a diligent search did not find any of the documents that I asked for.
That’s right, even the document for 2006, which the IRS filed in court, bearing the name of the IRS employee who accidentally revealed it, was not found by a diligent search.
More FOIA.
In 2004 the IRS’s letters contradicted each other to such an extent that I doubted whether the letters were really from the IRS or not. Of course now I know they resulted from IRS administrative records being altered from time to time in efforts to cover up embezzlement by cohorts of Monica Hernandez, but at the time I didn’t know most of what was going on, aside from the fact that they were abusing me and refusing to say why. Anyway, in 2005 I met an FBI agent at the US embassy in Tokyo. I gave him copies of the letters and explained why they appeared to be from people impersonating IRS agents. I asked for a police report. The FBI agent said he would not open an investigation. I said I understood, but I still wanted a police report to prove that I reported what I reported. He told me to submit an FOIA request to Washington.
The FBI is part of the US Department of Justice so that’s the place I submitted the FOIA request to. The DOJ also couldn’t find documents that I’d given to the FBI agent.
After a diligent search and destroy.
Peolpe who have not had an “opportunity” of dealing with anything like this do not believe any if this. That simply doesn’t happen in the US, or so they think as I bet most or all of us thought at one time.
Stephen: I salute you for taking the renunciation step. I know what a gut-wrenching decision this must have been. A thousand shames on the head of the US government for giving you no choice but to take this action. Now, enjoy that holiday as the truly free person you always thought you were!
@Polly
I note with interest your:
The vast vast majority references to expatriation seem to assume that tax compliance is required to renounce. As you point out, it is NOT the case the one must be tax compliant to renounce. Renunciations are handled by the Department of State. Tax is handled by Treasury. There is NO RELATIONSHIP between them. It IS true that:
1. There are U.S. tax consequences to renuncing/relinquishing (the failure to meet the test of tax compliance for five years would make one a “covered expatriate”;
2. Most people will handle their tax compliance issues because they want to put all aspects of U.S. citizenship behind them forever.
But, there is probably a large group of people where either “covered expatriate” status has little practical meaning or they realize that it is far more important to end their U.S. citizenship status on a “going forward basis”. The latter group may renounce and then may or may not deal with the tax consequences.
It all comes down to the question of : How important is the CLN to you?
Again: There is NO requirement of tax compliance to renounce. If you renounce without being tax compliant you must be willing to assume whatever the tax consequences may be.
@UScitizenabroad
Yes- I have heard of quite few families who have just renounced for the CLN. They needed it for their banks. But they never did their taxes afterwards. I have also met more and more people who have the US taint – europeans with US taint ( kid born in the US, green card, old US passport that was getting moldy in a back drawer)- and they do nothing about it.
I do worry about them. But everyone has to decide how they want to go forward for themselves.
I needed closure so I paid up.
Not filing after receiving a CLN is a perfectly reasonable course of action . So is doing nothing at all.-as we have seen over the last 5 years.
@ DoD
So is doing nothing at all.-as we have seen over the last 5 years.
exactly…….everybody has to make their own decisions based on their level of fear or comfort.
like i have said may times before i feel sorry for the people like many of my friends who have family or work obligations that require them to cross over the border into amerika.
i have no need or desire to travel back to the home land and present my self at the border so that i can be documented. uncle sam has no idea who or where i am and i am not about to surrender myself.
i have lied to the banks and the company that handles my rrsp’s even though i had the conversation years ago with my guy about where i was born.
i am going about living my life in my usual fashion and not worrying about if or when a letter may arrive in my mail box.
it took me a while to come to peace with this decision and i went through the 5 stages of grief but now i am comfortable.
here i am uncle sam …. come find me…..
New by Peter Spiro ( “A former law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court, Spiro specializes in international, immigration, and constitutional law.” https://www.law.temple.edu/contact/peter-j-spiro/ );
Spiro, Peter J., At Home in Two Countries: The Past and Future of Dual Citizenship (Introduction) (July 11, 2016). At Home in Two Countries: The Past and Future of Dual Citizenship (NYU Press, 2016); Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-38. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807898
Intro available only:
ex.
“..Dual nationality was once considered an offense to nature, an abomination on the order of bigamy. It was the stuff of titanic battles between the United States and European sovereigns. As those conflicts dissipated, dual citizenship continued to be an oddity, a condition that, if not quite freakish, was nonetheless vaguely disreputable, a status one could hold but not advertise. The mantle of loyalty and allegiance that has historically hung so heavily over citizenship continued to cloud popular perceptions of the status. Even today, some Americans mistakenly understand dual citizenship to somehow be “illegal”, when in fact it is completely tolerated. Only recently has the status largely shed the opprobrium to which it was once attached….”
….
“As described in chapter 5, dual citizenship serves the American national interest. Dual citizenship presents no significant societal costs. The trope of dual citizens as a fifth column never jived with realities on the ground. The non-state nature of contemporary conflict makes the security threat more implausible still. Dual citizens..”……
Only a portion of the work is available at SSRN, but it looks as if the whole thing is very worth reading if possible to obtain.
Would like to read what Spiro has to say about the de facto denial of the right to maintain dual citizenship ‘abroad’ by the IRS and US Treasury punitive actions towards those living outside the US, as well as the de facto denial of renunciation by the State Dept. tactics (ex. 2350. US fee, bottleneck created by minimizing available appointments at consulates, statement by US consular official in Canada that expatriations were low priority, and no intent to reduce backlog, etc.).
“Would like to read what Spiro has to say about the de facto denial of the right to maintain dual citizenship ‘abroad’ by the IRS and US Treasury punitive actions towards those living outside the US,”
Those are two separate issues. US citizens living outside the US are punished regardless of whether they have any other citizenship. US persons (for example former green card holders) living outside the US are punished even if they’re stateless. Dual citizenship makes no difference.
The CIA can terrorize other countries regardless of whether CIA agents hold citizenship of countries that they terrorize. Saudi citizens can terrorize the US regardless of whether they hold US citizenship, even if they only hold student visas, including visas that the US renews even after the hijackers are already dead. US natural born citizens can terrorize the US regardless of whether they hold citizenship of other countries. Dual citizenship might make a difference in some particular cases, but usually it doesn’t.
“At least for one, his road led to suicide.”
That’s what makes me the angriest.
The United States keeps going along with this monstrosity of a corrupt law and makes it so miserable for expats abroad that one decides that his life is no longer worth living. And there are still people in the CONUS that think that this corrupt law is right…that might makes right, that they have the right to hound expats of every last cent to pay for those who would not lift a single finger to work; for those who are entitled enough to think that others should pay for their lifestyle. And they hounded that poor expat to death. And that is the unfairness of it all.
For once, I wish that there was an actual “Independence Day” alien invasion that we could be freed from the clutches of this rogue nation. I’ve never wished for the destruction of a nation as much as I’ve wished for the destruction of the United States.
I’m at the point where I’m wishing that some other species (alien) would put the United States in their place; in fields of broken rubble and a smoking char-filled miasma to leave the earth for those who actually respect other species rights.
I’m going to have my wife renounce her citizenship once she gets her Canadian citizenship. The rules of being a covered expatriate are going to be thus:
This Act applies to individuals who relinquish their US citizenship or long term U.S. residency after June 16, 2008 and who either: 1) have an average annual income tax liability of more than $155,000 for the five years preceding expatriation; 2) have a net worth equal to or greater than $2,000,000 on the date of expatriation or termination of permanent residency; or 3) have failed to provide certified compliance with U.S. tax obligations for the five years prior to expatriation. An individual who meets one of these criteria is referred to as a “covered expatriate.”
SO unless her not filing tax returns doesn’t allow her to get her CLN… the USA can fuck right off.
Phil Hodge says:
Think of it this way. Pretend you go to a store and buy a camera. You hand over the money and the cashier puts the camera in a bag and you walk out. The camera is yours.
Now pretend that you buy the camera, but the cashier puts a receipt in the shopping bag, along with the camera.
Does the receipt make a difference as to whether you, standing on the sidewalk, are the owner of the camera? No. It is merely a proof of purchase, so that if needed in the future (e.g., you want to return the camera and get a refund), you can prove to someone else that you are the owner.
Bullshit, You’ve just forked over $10K and gotten nothing but the receipt to show for it. Do you get services for the 10K that you forked out. No, you got ripped off and then they expect you to be happy about it?
If I paid $5K for a Nikon D5 camera, I’d expect to walk out of the camera store with a Nikon D5 in one hand and a receipt in the other. If all the camera salesperson did was give me a receipt and said “have a nice day”. I’d be pretty pissed off just as any expat should be by this explanation from Phil “Dodge” Hodge.